Green Party Co-leader Adrian Ramsay. Wikipedia CC.
Responding to the Chancellor’s Spring Statement, the Co-Leader of The Green Party, Adrian Ramsay MP, said, “The Chancellor had a choice today. To rebalance our economy by asking the very wealthiest to contribute more, or to remove vital support from ill and disabled people. That she chose to take from the most vulnerable to balance her books is a damning reflection of how out of touch this government is. It is morally repugnant.”
He continued, “And it’s not just ill and disabled people who will suffer as the Chancellor doubles down on cuts to frontline services. This will weaken our communities and leave us all poorer. Labour once claimed that they were for the many, not the few – it’s clear now that this is no longer the case.”
Since the UK Labour government took office in summer 2024, calls have intensified to scrap both the “two-child limit” – which restricts support for children through universal credit to two children – and the overall benefit cap. With Chancellor Rachel Reeves resisting this pressure as she tries to manage deteriorating public finances, ways of tweaking the two-child limit policy have been proposed.
But as researchers of child poverty, we have no doubt that the best place to start reducing the high and rising numbers of children growing up in poverty in Britain today is by fully abolishing the two-child limit and the benefit cap.
We argue that both policies are astoundingly unfair. As our four-year research programme has documented, both are causing wide-ranging harm to children. They restrict children’s everyday experiences and damage their ability to thrive – which in the long run affects everyone in the UK.
Children live in poverty because their families don’t have an adequate income. This is partly a simple question of maths: wages don’t adjust when there are more mouths to feed. It’s also partly because things happen unexpectedly for some families – job loss, disability, relationship breakdown – leaving them needing extra support for a period of time.
Countries across Europe respond to these dual challenges by providing financial support that adjusts to family needs. Until recently, the UK did too. Indeed, the UK welfare state was one of the pioneers of “family allowances” in the post-war period.
But since 2017, the UK has reformed the system so that in families with three or more children, the support on offer when things go wrong deliberately and explicitly falls far short of what is needed. The UK’s two-child limit, an approach that differs to other countries in Europe, restricts means-tested support to two children in a family only. It bakes child poverty into the fibre of the UK.
Its sister policy, the benefit cap, limits the maximum benefit amount available to households without adults in work. This removes further help from some of the most vulnerable.
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.
The parents we spoke to frequently talked of difficulties in affording basic necessities for their children, including clothes and food. Many parents had resorted to using foodbanks or cut back on food spending.
The material impacts also affected children’s education and their social and emotional wellbeing. Jessica is a single mum of four. Her business went under during the pandemic and her partner left the household, leaving her affected by both the two-child limit and the benefit cap.
When a hole appeared in Jessica’s daughter’s school shoes, there was no money to replace them straight away. Her daughter went to school wearing trainers and was put in isolation for not adhering to the dress code. Jessica explained:
I got the phone call to say she had to go into isolation and, and things and I just said, “I’m not the type of person that just has £20 sat in the bank” … it was kind of a bit public shaming her really, taking her away and putting her in isolation.
Our interviews also showed that, despite parents’ best efforts to shield them, children are often aware of household financial hardship and in turn try to protect their parents. Christina, a mum of three affected by the two-child limit, said of her middle child:
He won’t say he needs new clothes and he won’t say his shoes don’t fit anymore … I think he’s got it into his head now that we can’t go out and spend or he can’t ask, and I feel so bad for that.
Our research also documents the importance of abolishing the benefit cap alongside the two-child limit. Otherwise, some families affected by the two-child limit won’t see much financial gain, while others will be newly pushed into the benefit cap.
Complete removal
Suggested alternatives to the full abolition of the two child limit include a “three-child limit”, or an exemption for children under five. These options would undoubtedly help some families, but would leave many of those in the greatest need still struggling.
Pound for pound, a three-child limit is less effective at reducing poverty than simple abolition, precisely because it is less well targeted on those in deepest poverty. An exemption for under fives would create a new cliff edge, removing significant support on a child’s fifth birthday, even though we know that the costs of children rise as children get older.
Further, these approaches continue to enforce a separation between what a family needs and its entitlement to support, and therefore will continue to embed child poverty as an institutional feature of our social security system. Children’s life chances will continue to be circumscribed by the number of siblings they have. Given what we know about the long-term costs of child poverty for society, these are short-sighted ways to save money today.
It is very encouraging that the government has committed to a child poverty strategy, and that the prime minister has said he will be “laser focused” on tackling child poverty.
But, as we wait for the strategy to be published, the number of children harmed by the two-child limit rises daily. Nearly two-in-five larger families are now affected and this is predicted to rise to 61% of larger families by the time the two-child limit has full coverage.
If the child poverty strategy is to have real impact, its starting point is straightforward: both the two-child limit and the benefit cap need to go, and urgently, before more damage is done to children’s lives.
Keir Starmer says that his Labour Party is intensely relaxed about assaulting the very poorest and most vulnerable.Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves wear the uniform of the rich and powerful. They have all had clothes bought for them by multi-millionaire Labour donor Lord Alli. CORRECTION: It appears that Rachel Reeves clothing was provided by Juliet Rosenfeld.
Rachel Reeves delivering her spring statement in the Commons. Photograph: House of Commons
Labour is braced for a backlash from its MPs over welfare cuts called ‘appalling’ by a foodbank charity
Rachel Reeves was accused of balancing the books at the expense of the poor in her spring statement, as official figures showed three million households could lose £1,720 a year in benefits.
The chancellor confirmed welfare cuts of £4.8bn, but insisted the government’s priority was to restore stability to the public finances in the face of rising global borrowing costs.
Economists warned Reeves could be forced to come back with more tax rises in the autumn, with the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) saying that any tariffs imposed by Donald Trump may upend their forecasts.
…
Ruth Curtice, the director of the Resolution Foundation thinktank, said while Reeves was right to balance the books, she was “wrong to do so on the backs of low- to middle-income families, on whom two-thirds of the welfare cuts will fall”.
Helen Barnard, the director of policy at the food bank charity Trussell, said: “The insistence by the Treasury on driving through record cuts to disabled people’s social security to balance the books is both shocking and appalling. People at food banks are telling us they are terrified how they’ll survive.”
…
Keir Starmer confirms that he’s proud to be a red Tory continuing austerity and targeting poor and disabled scum.Keir Starmer says pensioners can freeze to death and poor children can starve and be condemned to failure and misery all their lives.
Elon Musk attends U.S. President Donald Trump’s Cabinet meeting at the White House on March 24, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)
“Wisconsin voters should get to decide this election, not the richest billionaire in the world,” said the Working Families Party.
Early voting is underway for the April 1 election to determine ideological control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and right-wing billionaire Elon Musk recently admitted why he is pouring millions of dollars into the close contest: It “will decide how congressional districts are drawn” in the state.
As Mother Jones‘ Ari Berman reported Tuesday, Musk—the richest person in the world and a key figure in Republican President Donald Trump’s administration—made that comment Saturday, while hosting the right-wing candidate, Judge Brad Schimel of Waukesha County, and U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), for a discussion on X, the billionaire’s social media platform.
Musk said that if Judge Susan Crawford of Dane County wins, “then the Democrats will attempt to redraw the districts and cause Wisconsin to lose two Republican seats. In my opinion that’s the most important thing, which is a big deal given that the congressional majority is so razor-thin. It could cause the House to switch to Democrat if that redrawing takes place.”
Liberals have had a 4-3 majority on the swing state’s highest court since the 2023 election of Justice Janet Protasiewicz. Crawford and Schimel are fighting for a 10-year term filling the seat now occupied by 74-year-old left-leaning Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, who decided not to seek reelection. In addition to determining the future of Republicans’ 6-2 advantage for congressional districts, next week’s election is expected to impact abortion care, labor rights, and voter suppression efforts in Wisconsin.
From @ariberman.bsky.social:Elon Musk revealed why he's spending millions to flip the Wisconsin Supreme Court It’s all about preserving gerrymandered districts that lock in Republican power.www.motherjones.com/politics/202…
Berman noted that if Crawford won and Wisconsin’s maps changed before the 2026 midterm elections, a Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Represntatives could “scrutinize the unprecedented role Musk is playing in shredding the federal government, accessing sensitive personal information on millions of Americans, and the $38 billion in federal funding his businesses receive.”
The billionaire also has a personal stake in the race related to one of his businesses. As The New York Times noted Saturday: “A conservative-controlled court could be in a position to issue a Musk-friendly decision in a lawsuit from his electric car company, Tesla, challenging Wisconsin’s law prohibiting vehicle manufacturers from owning dealerships. On social media, Mr. Musk began to show interest in the Wisconsin court election eight days after Tesla filed the lawsuit in January.”
Crawford campaign spokesperson Derrick Honeyman told The Associated Press on Monday that “this race is the first real test point in the country on Elon Musk and his influence on our politics, and voters want an opportunity to push back on that and the influence he is trying to make on Wisconsin and the rest of country.”
As of Tuesday, Musk has recently given at least $3 million to the state’s Republican Party, according to WisPolitics—which has also “tracked nearly $19.5 million in spending” on the race by two political action committees (PACs) affiliated with the billionaire.
GOP paid canvasser shows depth of support for Schimel. None.www.jsonline.com/story/news/p…
As Common Dreams reported last week, Musk’s America PAC is also offering registered Wisconsin voters $100 if they sign a petition opposing “activist judges,” which led critics to accuse the billionaire of trying to buy the state Supreme Court seat.
Those critics include the Working Families Party, which has sent a pair of emails in recent days highlighting how much Musk has spent “to install MAGA extremist Brad Schimel” on the court, and arguing that “Wisconsin voters should get to decide this election, not the richest billionaire in the world.”
Forbes reported Tuesday that “Musk is far from the only billionaire who is financially backing the Wisconsin Supreme Court race. Among the other billionaires listed in public filings as spending thousands to support Schimel—either directly or through the Wisconsin Republican Party—are ABC Supply co-founder Diane Hendricks, Uline president Elizabeth Uihlein, Uline CEO Richard Uihlein, and Joe Ricketts, the founder of TD Ameritrade and owner of the Chicago Cubs. Crawford has also drawn significant billionaire support from the likes of Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, and Democratic megadonor George Soros, who gave the Wisconsin Democratic Party $1 million in January.”
WisPolitics noted Tuesday that “Crawford has now reported $26.5 million raised, a record for any judicial candidate in U.S. history,” while Schimel “has now raised $14.3 million.” However, according to Michael Waldman, president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice, dark money on the race is favoring the right-wing candidate.
“It’s already the most expensive judicial race in American history,” Waldman said in a Tuesday newsletter. “According to data collected by the Brennan Center and analyzed by my colleagues Ian Vandewalker and Douglas Keith, campaigns and committees have spent $81 million so far, with a week to go.”
“Much of the money being spent is untraceable,” he stressed. “As the latest data shows, Crawford’s campaign spending of $22 million is more than double that of Schimel’s $10.4 million. But independent groups like super PACs and nonprofits spending untraceable dark money favor Schimel by a much larger margin: $13.5 million benefiting Crawford compared with almost $35.5 million boosting Schimel.”
Only seven days until Wisconsin’s April 1 election.
Only one week to help elect Judge Susan Crawford and keep Elon Musk from buying a Supreme Court seat for Brad Schimel.
Schimel also got a boost on Friday from Trump, who endorsed him on social media, writing in part that “Radical Left Liberal Susan Crawford… is the handpicked voice of the Leftists who are out to destroy your State, and our Country.” The president added Saturday: “It’s a really big and important race, and could have much to do with the future of our Country. Get out and VOTE, NOW, for the Republican Candidate—BRAD!!!”
Meanwhile, Crawford is backed by groups like Wisconsin Conservation Voters IEC, which has invested more than $1.13 million to turn voters out in support of her.
“The stakes in this election could not be higher,” the group’s deputy director, Seth Hoffmeister, said in a Tuesday statement. “Judge Susan Crawford will defend our democracy and protect Wisconsin’s natural resources. She is a strong advocate for the values that make Wisconsin great—fairness, accountability, and a commitment to serving the people, not polluters. Judge Crawford will ensure that our State Supreme Court remains independent and dedicated to upholding the rights and freedoms of all Wisconsinites.”
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes’ concept of democracy.
